Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Minolta MD 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 - are tested, again...
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
Another one near-fifty has been reviewed - Minolta MC Rokkor PF 55mm 1:1.7 this time
(MC-II)

I see you finally got acquainted with my very best Minolta waifu, hehe.

It's pretty much at the bottom of the pack sharpness-wise, and pretty much at the top by the amount of magic pixie dust in it's glass.
One other thing worth noting: due to absence of purple fringing and generally pleasing CA, it's one of the lenses I very rarely correct in post.

Unlike the other 50s, more often than not I find myself simply enjoying everything this lens has to offer.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
I see you finally got acquainted with my very best Minolta waifu, hehe.


Yes, the nice lens
After this one, I'm thinking about to test something near-50 of Minolta AR's generations


PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I beg your pardon.

But one of the cuestión for me, here is.

If you have to o want to take only one lens for general photography, which MD is the adecuate?

MD 1 7/50?

MD 2/50?

MD 1,4/50

MD 1,2/50?

Forget the money in this case.

Camera? Sony A7, A7Ii. A7RII.

THANKS


PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
I beg your pardon.

But one of the cuestión for me, here is.

If you have to o want to take only one lens for general photography, which MD is the adecuate?

MD 1 7/50?

MD 2/50?

MD 1,4/50

MD 1,2/50?

Forget the money in this case.

Camera? Sony A7, A7Ii. A7RII.

THANKS


I would recommend the MD III 50/1.4 (identical with the AF 50/1.4). Besides the 50/1.2 (I have the 58/1.2 instead) I have all of them but my most used and most favorite is the 50/1.4.
It's a fantastic lens in an enhanced Ultron 7/6 design like the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and really excellent (by far better than the new Sony FE 50/1.8 in direct comparison on the A7R II).


PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
papasito wrote:
I beg your pardon.

But one of the cuestión for me, here is.

If you have to o want to take only one lens for general photography, which MD is the adecuate?

MD 1 7/50?

MD 2/50?

MD 1,4/50

MD 1,2/50?

Forget the money in this case.

Camera? Sony A7, A7Ii. A7RII.

THANKS


I would recommend the MD III 50/1.4 (identical with the AF 50/1.4). Besides the 50/1.2 (I have the 58/1.2 instead) I have all of them but my most used and most favorite is the 50/1.4.
It's a fantastic lens in an enhanced Ultron 7/6 design like the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and really excellent (by far better than the new Sony FE 50/1.8 in direct comparison on the A7R II).


Thank you, very much.

I Will look for the MD 1 4/50. But it is not a common lens here.

in the meantime, Will buy a MD ROKKOR 1,2/50.
for general use.

Another option is the nikkor ais 50/1,4 but it seems that nobody likes the performance of it.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Another option is the nikkor ais 50/1,4 but it seems that nobody likes the performance of it.


If you're willing to consider Nikkors, I suggest taking a look at the old 50mm Nikkor-H f/2. It's inexpensive, common, and excellent.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KEO wrote:
papasito wrote:
Another option is the nikkor ais 50/1,4 but it seems that nobody likes the performance of it.


If you're willing to consider Nikkors, I suggest taking a look at the old 50mm Nikkor-H f/2. It's inexpensive, common, and excellent.


Keo, thank you very much.
Great lens too.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:

If you have to o want to take only one lens for general photography, which MD is the adecuate?

MD 1 7/50?

MD 2/50?

MD 1,4/50

MD 1,2/50?

I have an MD-III 50/1.4 and an MD-III 50/2.
50/1.4 is undoubtedly a better lens, but I plan to sell it and keep the 50/2.

The slower one has quite distinctive bad/weird bokeh and very "clean" output.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
papasito wrote:

If you have to o want to take only one lens for general photography, which MD is the adecuate?

MD 1 7/50?

MD 2/50?

MD 1,4/50

MD 1,2/50?

I have an MD-III 50/1.4 and an MD-III 50/2.
50/1.4 is undoubtedly a better lens, but I plan to sell it and keep the 50/2.

The slower one has quite distinctive bad/weird bokeh and very "clean" output.



Thank you.

You will sell the MDIII coz you have the nFD 50/1 4.😉

I had the nFD too

I sold it when bought the FD 55/1 2 SSC.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I picked up a copy of the FD 55/1.2 SSC a couple years ago, but it didn't even occur to me to sell one of my FD 50/1.4s. They're relatively compact and very useful, whereas the 55 is rather large and heavy. That's a lens you really want to carry around.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:

You will sell the MDIII coz you have the nFD 50/1 4.😉

All things considered they are pretty equal in the real world shooting.

But yes, I do admit having a slight preference towards FDn 50/1.4 Smile

papasito wrote:

I had the nFD too

I sold it when bought the FD 55/1 2 SSC.

Understandable. If I wasn't so hell-bent on using light lenses, I would trade it for a 55/1.2 too.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:

50/1.4 is undoubtedly a better lens, but I plan to sell it and keep the 50/2.

The slower one has quite distinctive bad/weird bokeh and very "clean" output.


Something that's usually overlooked: The MD-III 2/50mm has virtually no distortion at all (around 0.1% at infinity). The MD-III 1.2/50mm and the 1.4/50mm both are in the 2% range. The Canon has even more (>3% as far as i remember, but i'm not completely sure).

S


PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
aidaho wrote:

50/1.4 is undoubtedly a better lens, but I plan to sell it and keep the 50/2.

The slower one has quite distinctive bad/weird bokeh and very "clean" output.


Something that's usually overlooked: The MD-III 2/50mm has virtually no distortion at all (around 0.1% at infinity). The MD-III 1.2/50mm and the 1.4/50mm both are in the 2% range. The Canon has even more (>3% as far as i remember, but i'm not completely sure).

S


If I undestand un the right way, it seems that the difference among the MD F/2 and the MD f/1,4 are the 1,4 aperture and the better bokeh of the 1,4.

Resolution power is similar (the 1 4 is a bit better in F/4-5,6), contrast is similar too.

Differences are not too strong, I guess.

Am I wrong?


PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:

If I undestand un the right way, it seems that the difference among the MD F/2 and the MD f/1,4 are the 1,4 aperture and the better bokeh of the 1,4.

Resolution power is similar (the 1 4 is a bit better in F/4-5,6), contrast is similar too.

No, MD-III 50/1.4 is sharper than MD-III 50/2 at all apertures.
Perhaps it boils down to the particular copies, but I found tales about exceptional sharpness of MD-III 50/2 to be an exaggeration.

papasito wrote:

Differences are not too strong, I guess.

Am I wrong?

They are very different lenses, in my opinion.
Again, going by something easily quantifiable, like sharpness or light transmission, MD-III 50/1.4 is clearly the better one of the two.


In my limited experience slower lenses are much more diverse than 50/1.4s across the brands.
If you already have an 50/1.4, chances are you will struggle to find anything interesting in yet another 50/1.4.









If you want another lens, and it just must be a 50/1.4, take a look at the Olympus Zukio 50/1.4


I'm not going to say Zuiko 50/1.4 is better, but at least it clearly is an another lens.


I hope I've managed to express the difference between "good" and "interesting".
The MD-III 50/1.4 is good (roughly just as good as other 50/1.4s), and the MD-III 50/2 is interesting (bad, but it's a quite unique bad look).


PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
papasito wrote:

If I undestand un the right way, it seems that the difference among the MD F/2 and the MD f/1,4 are the 1,4 aperture and the better bokeh of the 1,4.

Resolution power is similar (the 1 4 is a bit better in F/4-5,6), contrast is similar too.

No, MD-III 50/1.4 is sharper than MD-III 50/2 at all apertures.
Perhaps it boils down to the particular copies, but I found tales about exceptional sharpness of MD-III 50/2 to be an exaggeration.

papasito wrote:

Differences are not too strong, I guess.

Am I wrong?

They are very different lenses, in my opinion.
Again, going by something easily quantifiable, like sharpness or light transmission, MD-III 50/1.4 is clearly the better one of the two.


In my limited experience slower lenses are much more diverse than 50/1.4s across the brands.
If you already have an 50/1.4, chances are you will struggle to find anything interesting in yet another 50/1.4.









If you want another lens, and it just must be a 50/1.4, take a look at the Olympus Zukio 50/1.4


I'm not going to say Zuiko 50/1.4 is better, but at least it clearly is an another lens.


I hope I've managed to express the difference between "good" and "interesting".
The MD-III 50/1.4 is good (roughly just as good as other 50/1.4s), and the MD-III 50/2 is interesting (bad, but it's a quite unique bad look).


Thank you Aidaho.

I'm looking for only one 50 mm lens for all around general use.

My interesting lens is the Hexanon 57/1,4.

Perhaps the best in my taste is the Nikon 50/1,4 AIS.

And the Zuiko is one of the go to lens too. Which version is yours?

The summilux R E55 is another, but excesive money is needed. I had it in M mount time ago. I love it.


Canon nFD 50/1,4 is other.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:

Thank you Aidaho.

I'm looking for only one 50 mm lens for all around general use.

Any from your list will do, but I would eliminate 50/1.4, since you already have FDn 50/1.4.
Next thing to consider, whether you would be willing to put up with 50/1.2 weight, since if not, that would reduce your choice to 50/2 and 50/1.7.

Carrying something like MC Rokkor-PG 50/1.4 or Vivitar 55/2.8 macro can help you with understanding 50/1.2 weight.

papasito wrote:

And the Zuiko is one of the go to lens too. Which version is yours?

It's a 1979 Zuiko MC, s/n 851278.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
papasito wrote:

Thank you Aidaho.

I'm looking for only one 50 mm lens for all around general use.

Any from your list will do, but I would eliminate 50/1.4, since you already have FDn 50/1.4.
Next thing to consider, whether you would be willing to put up with 50/1.2 weight, since if not, that would reduce your choice to 50/2 and 50/1.7.

Carrying something like MC Rokkor-PG 50/1.4 or Vivitar 55/2.8 macro can help you with understanding 50/1.2 weight.

papasito wrote:

And the Zuiko is one of the go to lens too. Which version is yours?

It's a 1979 Zuiko MC, s/n 851278.


Thank you, again.

Ohhh....you have the v.3 of the Olympus.

Very, very good lens.

The nFD is not with my now. I sold it time ago.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
...
The MD-III 50/1.4 is good (roughly just as good as other 50/1.4s), and the MD-III 50/2 is interesting (bad, but it's a quite unique bad look).

Sometimes we agree... sometimes not. Saying that the Minolta MD-III is bad is utter nonsense, however. the MD-III 2/50mm is quite as sharp as the Nikkor 1.8/50 mm (which in turn is clearly better in terms of resolution and distortion than the venerable Nikkor-H 2/50mm). The MD-III 2/50mm has slightly less contrast than e. g. the MD-III 1.4/50mm in the f2 ... f4 range, but in turn it offers 20 times less distortion and considerably less lateral CAs.

And, by the way, the MD-III 2/50mm is way better than the Super Takumar 1.4/50mm.

A bad lens ...? I would not say so.

S


PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Saying that the Minolta MD-III is bad is utter nonsense, however. the MD-III 2/50mm is quite as sharp as...

Perhaps it wasn't immediately obvious, but I was a) talking about weird bokeh, and b) presenting this as an a/b comparison.
Never claimed MD-III 50/2 as unsharp, just not sharper than MD-III 50/1.4.
As to the bad bokeh: once you leave the headshot range, this thing does some pretty funky stuff.

It actually fairly distinctive closer to the MFD too:





Headshot distance: still looks pretty good





Move a bit further though and here we go:





Wait, what the...





It's not just all happy new adventures though.
Bad bokeh is still bad bokeh, and it will try to screw up your pics.





It is my understanding that the best results with MD-III 50/2 come when there is no complete separation between the subject and the background, like you would usually want in order to show full character of the lens.
Giving a bit less breathing space to Minolta tames it's bad bokeh into a rather unique look.


Ouch:



Should've stopped down, but those were the first shots.
Later in a similar situation with faraway background I knew I had to choke it down one stop:





Anyway, I'm going to stand with my opinion of MD-III 50/2 being a bad bokeh lens in a "classical" sense.
Smooth and creamy™? Nope.
Better than the MD-III 50/1.4? Nope.
Unique? Yes, in my opinion it does stand out.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at the battle mdIII 50/2 VS. mdIII 50/1,4,

I ask where does the MD III 50/1 7 play in this game?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Saying that the Minolta MD-III is bad is utter nonsense, however. the MD-III 2/50mm is quite as sharp as...

Perhaps it wasn't immediately obvious, but I was a) talking about weird bokeh,


Sorry, i wasn't aware of that Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Looking at the battle mdIII 50/2 VS. mdIII 50/1,4,

I ask where does the MD III 50/1 7 play in this game?


50/1.7 and 50/2 might be the same lens, just like 55/1.7 and 55/1.9 MCII were.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gardener wrote:
50/1.7 and 50/2 might be the same lens, just like 55/1.7 and 55/1.9 MCII were.

55/1.7 and 55/1.9 are definitely not the same. I do have both.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My only 50mm Minolta is the 55 1.7 and I wouldn't compare it with 1.4's that I have , but it's worth every €$£ .


PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
Gardener wrote:
50/1.7 and 50/2 might be the same lens, just like 55/1.7 and 55/1.9 MCII were.

55/1.7 and 55/1.9 are definitely not the same. I do have both.


Well.

Among the Minolta's 50 lenses all seem to be clear.

The canon nfd 50/1,4 and the minolta. MD III 50/1,4 were revisted before.

But what about the minolta MDIII 50/1,7 VS. the Canon FD and nFD 50/1,8 lens?

Which to have?